GUILTY UK - Joanna Yeates, 25, Clifton, Bristol, 17 Dec 2010 #16

[Sammyme]

I think they would have been taken straight to the jury room and had lunch brought in to them. Deliberations carry on whilst eating. That's my experience anyway

They probably had some sort of a break and some time to settle down, though, and even if lunch brought in, that takes up some time too.

 

[veggiefan]

They probably had some sort of a break and some time to settle down, though, and even if lunch brought in, that takes up some time too.

They would have had a comfort break of a few minutes, but the stale sandwiches were probably already waiting for them on the table and it would have been made clear by the usher that juries normally discuss while munching.

Don't forget that at least some members of the jury will be keen to minimize the time they are having to take off work, perhaps because they are self-employed and losing work/income, or because they are teachers, doctors or in similar professions where it is not easy to obtain cover for a protracted absence.

 

[otto]

There is a RTRS, but if you then rely on something in court that was not disclosed (the flirting for example) then adverse inference may be drawn from this (ie: is defendant concocting story to fit with other known evidence ?)

Thansk ... I was getting caught up from page 16 ... so as I was reading I was getting a better understanding of the rights of a suspect.

 

[otto]

I easily do all those things within one minute of coming through my door; or a fairly comparable sequence of actions. I'm not buying the taking off one sock idea though ...


.... or the apron business. I've seen no evidence she put on an apron.



He might just have made a grab at her. Again, that could just have taken up seconds - he is the one claiming there was a cosy 10 minute chat.

The sexual assault allegation has to almost be something that happened after she was "limp", as VT put it. In the prosecutions timeline, this makes sense. She was attacked at about 8:45 and he went to the grocery store, with her in his car, at about 9:35. There is missing time there. If the murder was sudden and instant (corresponding to screams at about 8:45), I don't see that there is time for a sexual assault prior to the murder.

 

[Clio]

They probably had some sort of a break and some time to settle down, though, and even if lunch brought in, that takes up some time too.

They would have had a comfort break of a few minutes, but the stale sandwiches were probably already waiting for them on the table and it would have been made clear by the usher that juries normally discuss while munching.

Not this this is terribly important however....

Lunch being brought in takes very little time. If the stale/soggy sandwiches aren't there already, you fill in tick box form to say which stale sandwich/flavour of crisps/soft drink you want and the usher goes and fetches them.

There has been a toilet adjoining the jury room in all the ones I've been in.

 

[otto]

The reason they said she arrived home at 8 40 pm is because that is what the combined CCTV evidence and timing of such a distance on foot suggests.

Why are you saying the murder was 7 to 10 minutes after 8 33 pm? Is that to shore up your claim that Joanna couldn't have opened the cider, turned on her oven etc - although Greg gave evidence of finding the cider open?

If you say it happened at 7 minutes after 8 33 pm which would be 8 40, why are you accusing the prosecution of wrapping it around the screams Mrs Lehman heard, given that Mrs Lehman didn't arrive until 8 45 - 9 00 pm?

What you are saying doesn't fit.

The timeline that I remember from early on was that she was seen at about 8:40 away from the flat. At this point, I'm unsure what times are accurate because as soon as times start changing, I don't entirely trust them. If she was away at 8:40 and had a few minutes walk home still, that means the earliest she could have arrived home is about 8:45. VT may have attacked/killed her at 8:45, but then he still did not have time for a sexual assault - at least not while she was alive.

 

[bos]

The sexual assault allegation has to almost be something that happened after she was "limp", as VT put it. In the prosecutions timeline, this makes sense. She was attacked at about 8:45 and he went to the grocery store, with her in his car, at about 9:35. There is missing time there. If the murder was sudden and instant (corresponding to screams at about 8:45), I don't see that there is time for a sexual assault prior to the murder.

Where on earth are you getting the 9.35pm time from?:waitasec:

 

[veggiefan]

Not this this is terribly important however....

Lunch being brought in takes very little time. If the stale/soggy sandwiches aren't there already, you fill in tick box form to say which stale sandwich/flavour of crisps/soft drink you want and the usher goes and fetches them.

To a maximum value of about a fiver, if I remember correctly. One always had the feeling that the judge and barristers got something considerably better.

In fact, now I think about it, most of the jury took to bringing in their own packed lunches after the first few days - but you can't claim the cost if the court has offered its own historic sandwiches.

There has been a toilet adjoining the jury room in all the ones I've been in.

I've only been to one, but that was my experience, too.

 

[otto]

Where on earth are you getting the 9.35pm time from?:waitasec:

Wasn't it 9:25 that VT texted his girlfriend? Wasn't that shortly before he went to buy crisps, beer and rocksalt? Wasn't that the time that VT claims the attack occurred - shortly before he texted his girlfriend?

The 9:25 text was from home. If he murdered her at 8:45, there is 40 minutes unaccounted for.

"He sent texts to his girlfriend Tanja at 9.25pm and 10.30pm, saying he was ”bored”.

http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-stran...ing-with-her-body-in-his-car-boot-101603.html

 

[Sammyme]

They would have had a comfort break of a few minutes, but the stale sandwiches were probably already waiting for them on the table and it would have been made clear by the usher that juries normally discuss while munching.

Don't forget that at least some members of the jury will be keen to minimize the time they are having to take off work, perhaps because they are self-employed and losing work/income, or because they are teachers, doctors or in similar professions where it is not easy to obtain cover for a protracted absence.

Crikey. Sandwiches! (in the manner of Lady Bracknell's "A handbag!")
I'd have expected they'd run to a buffet at least. No wonder if juries want to reach a decision - any decision - just to get out of there.

 

[Clio]

Wasn't it 9:25 that VT texted his girlfriend? Wasn't that shortly before he went to buy crisps, beer and rocksalt? Wasn't that the time that VT claims the attack occurred - shortly before he texted his girlfriend?

The 9:25 text was from home. If he murdered her at 8:45, there is 40 minutes unaccounted for.

"He sent texts to his girlfriend Tanja at 9.25pm and 10.30pm, saying he was ”bored”.

http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-stran...ing-with-her-body-in-his-car-boot-101603.html

VT texted TM at 9:25pm - Fact

He is then caught on CCTV driving somewhere between 10:00 and 10:15 (I have seen both times reported and I'm not sure which is true or if they are both true)

He arrives at Asda at 10:28pm - Fact

He again texts TM at 10:30pm - Fact

VT claims he sent the 9:25pm text before the encounter with JY happened

The prosecution claim he killed her shortly before 9:00pm and therefore the 9:25pm text to TM was sent after she was dead

Try this although I don't think it is totally accurate
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-st...trial-countdown-to-a-tragedy-115875-23480428/

 

[Curious Alice]

Nothing seemed to come out in the trial about any bridge CCTV footage did it ? I seem to remember if was considered important at the time the police were searching for leads.

 

[otto]

VT texted TM at 9:25pm - Fact

He is then caught on CCTV driving somewhere between 10:00 and 10:15 (I have seen both times reported and I'm not sure which is true or if they are both true)

He arrives at Asda at 10:28pm - Fact

He again texts TM at 10:30pm - Fact

VT claims he sent the 9:25pm text shortly after which the encounter with JY happened

The prosecution claim he killed her shortly before 9:00pm and therefore the 9:25pm text to TM was sent after she was dead

Exactly. So if she was murdered shortly before 9 and VT is moving the time back to 9:25, then there is missing time. There was no sexual assault while she was alive if she was dead in 20 seconds of the screams. From 8:45 - 9:25, time is missing. In fact, if we look at the 10:30 time that he arrived at the grocery store, it appears that the moving of the body to his car occurred after the 9:25 text.

 

[Sammyme]

The timeline that I remember from early on was that she was seen at about 8:40 away from the flat. At this point, I'm unsure what times are accurate because as soon as times start changing, I don't entirely trust them. If she was away at 8:40 and had a few minutes walk home still, that means the earliest she could have arrived home is about 8:45. VT may have attacked/killed her at 8:45, but then he still did not have time for a sexual assault - at least not while she was alive.

But in your last post, you put the murder at 8 40 pm.

Now you are building something around her being seen away from the flat at 8 40 pm (and arriving home at 8 45 pm) even though we heard from the court - both sides and the judge - that she arrived home at 8 40 pm. Nothing that I have heard from court stated that she was seen away from the flat at 8 40 pm.

 

[Nausicaa]

Nothing seemed to come out in the trial about any bridge CCTV footage did it ? I seem to remember if was considered important at the time the police were searching for leads.

No. I was waiting for bridge footage, a sobbing female and a very important item handed in by a member of the public. Very disappointing that apparently none of them were mentioned.

 

[otto]

Nothing seemed to come out in the trial about any bridge CCTV footage did it ? I seem to remember if was considered important at the time the police were searching for leads.

I've never seen a timeline attached to this:

"CCTV pictures again showed Tabak driving up and down roads in Bristol, including roads that lead out towards Longwood, Lane, in Failand, North Somerset – where Jo’s body was found."

http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-stran...ing-with-her-body-in-his-car-boot-101603.html

 

[Curious Alice]

Exactly. So if she was murdered shortly before 9 and VT is moving the time back to 9:25, then there is missing time. There was no sexual assault while she was alive if she was dead in 20 seconds of the screams. From 8:45 - 9:25, time is missing. In fact, if we look at the 10:30 time that he arrived at the grocery store, it appears that the moving of the body to his car occurred after the 9:25 text.

All so confusing (because he is lying about some of the info, what he did, when he did it?) It's only the evidence on CCTV and text that is not disputable.

 

[FiestyFairy]

Thinking this evening that despite hearing the presented evidence, it still doesn't make sense. Nothing is as it appears in this case, and no proposal put forward entirely eases the nagging doubts. I would hope that at some time the truth will come out, but I suspect if it does it wont bear any resemblance to the truth as VT has presented it
I wouldn't be the least bit surprise if she were rendered somehow unconscious, removed from her flat and then murdered somewhere else

 

[Clio]

Exactly. So if she was murdered shortly before 9 and VT is moving the time back to 9:25, then there is missing time. There was no sexual assault while she was alive if she was dead in 20 seconds of the screams. From 8:45 - 9:25, time is missing. In fact, if we look at the 10:30 time that he arrived at the grocery store, it appears that the moving of the body to his car occurred after the 9:25 text.

Not sure what you mean about missing time? According to VT up until 9:25pm he was in his flat having a beer and watching TV.

If VT is lying (perish the thought) and she was dead just before 9:00pm then between 9:00pm and 9:25pm he could have moved her body to his flat and collected the pizza and sock and put her in the cycle bag
He then texts TM to pretend he is at home and is bored without her
He could have moved the car and put the body in the boot either before or after texting TM at 9:25pm

 

[Curious Alice]

I've never seen a timeline attached to this:

"CCTV pictures again showed Tabak driving up and down roads in Bristol, including roads that lead out towards Longwood, Lane, in Failand, North Somerset – where Jo’s body was found."

http://swns.com/vincent-tabak-stran...ing-with-her-body-in-his-car-boot-101603.html

Thanks otto, there are several routes, some direct and some a round about way of getting to LL so that report makes sense; would have been interesting to know the time though.

One thing that surprised me was the revelation (assuming VT is being truthful and CCTV backs this up) was that Jo was left (dumped like roadkill :furious: that upsets me so much) at LL in Failand on the night of her death - I had initially assumed that she was taken there at a later point in time; seems incredible that she wasn't found before even with the bad weather that subsequently occurred.